Disappointing News

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Disappointing News

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Res Ipsa wrote:Faqs, have you read the Colorado civil rights statute that governs public accommodations?

The record in the case states that the bakery also refused to sell cupcakes when it found out that they were for a same sex wedding. How is selling cupcakes participating in a wedding?


Same principle.... If you know your labor is going to be used for something you don't support, you have every right to refuse service.
This is fundamental business law. And part of the reason for that is because you can actually be punished by the law if your goods and services are knowingly used for things that are against the law.

You're also ignoring the key point. Did they or did they not always sell their goods and services to gays? They did.
Thus, by definition, it cannot be claimed they broke the anti-discriminatory laws. Their refusal of service was for a subset subject matter, not the "persons" in question.

Again, I go back to a previous example I've given. People have a right to Porn, but a Construction company can't be "forced" to build a Porn Shop simply because they do construction. Same kinda thing. Cake or Construction, you can't be forced to use your labor or goods on things you don't support.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Disappointing News

Post by _honorentheos »

ldsfaqs wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Thanks for explaining.

Also, we've hashed out the issue in this thread regarding the conflict between rights of belief v. rights of action. Sorry to tell you but you can actually be forced to do things or not do things that are lawful whether you agree with them or not. It's kinda fundamental to a functioning society.


Yes, it is fundamental to a functioning society, but rights end the MOMENT you infringe on someone else's rights.

The issue here is what happens when two rights come into conflict. You are arguing as if only one party's rights are being infringed when it is more the case that the baker's right to free expression came into conflict with the couple seeking a wedding cake's right to equal treatment under the law.

And if you spent some time reading this thread you'd already know that equal treatment is historically going to trump freedom of expression when it comes to that expression taking the form of discriminatory practice. So long as that baker is in the business of selling wedding cakes they aren't able to claim that not selling a cake to a gay couple is an expression of their religious practice. Also already discussed is how the law deals with the difference between religious belief and actions claimed to be motivated by religious belief that violate the law.

Forcing a baker to bake a cake for an activity he doesn't support is the very definition of Totalitarianism, NOT "fundamental laws that govern civil society".

No it's not. The baker is in the business of making and selling wedding cakes. That baker can't discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation or choice to use that cake in a way with which he disagrees that disregards the law. Again, religious belief does not and cannot justify breaking the law or else one opens the door wide open to anarchy. When folks make it sound like this is a bad slippery slope argument, they do so from a position where they are assuming we all already know and share the same understanding of what is acceptable religious exemption and what would not be tolerated by society. But that is by definition discrimination. And that is actually how totalitarian governments tend to operate, faqs. Go to North Korea and after you get done being awed by the propaganda you might notice the rules and how they get applied are the purview of the leadership with no attempt to maintain neutrality or justice.

You're on the wrong side of this.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Disappointing News

Post by _Lemmie »

honorentheos wrote:
Forcing a baker to bake a cake for an activity he doesn't support is the very definition of Totalitarianism, NOT "fundamental laws that govern civil society".

No it's not. The baker is in the business of making and selling wedding cakes...


I think this is a key point. A baker is not forced to open a business, they are voluntarily entering into certain conditions so that they can run a (legal) business. They are choosing to be bound by certain conditions. If they truly do not want to make a cake for a specific activity and the conditions of their business registration would require them to do so, they can choose instead not to run a bakery.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Disappointing News

Post by _honorentheos »

honorentheos wrote:
faqs wrote:Forcing a baker to bake a cake for an activity he doesn't support is the very definition of Totalitarianism, NOT "fundamental laws that govern civil society".

No it's not. The baker is in the business of making and selling wedding cakes...


Lemmie wrote:I think this is a key point. A baker is not forced to open a business, they are voluntarily entering into certain conditions so that they can run a (legal) business. They are choosing to be bound by certain conditions. If they truly do not want to make a cake for a specific activity and the conditions of their business registration would require them to do so, they can choose instead not to run a bakery.

Exactly, and those conditions include respecting the right to equal treatment under the law. I've yet to see someone articulate an argument for allowing "freedom of conscious" exemptions that do not rely on the assumption that there are unspecified limits that still guarantee the rule of law will be preserved. And that these limits look an awful lot like their own personal views regarding "good" beliefs and those that aren't.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Post Reply